maybe i'm just a cheapskate-liberal (oxymoron? not me, the word) but what is it about these words that you hate? are words that we hate more or less valuable? my guess is more, since they would tend to be more expressive, at least in a personal, ideolectical, if that's a word, way. i hate the word 'synergy' because of the way it gets used. anyhow.

hey, what is this "us"? quit othering me. but really, i don't mind. she ain't heavy, she's my other. tee hee. but my point was not to take anyone too seriously, seriously. and my question stands: what is semantically valuable in the words we hate? hate is not anathema to lexical quality or diversity. i suspect it's fertilizer.

Welcome Joshua, with a round of non-sequitors like that I see you fit right in here. Most of those of us who have been here for a while can be a bit frivolous at times. Gosh da new rules is hard to foller (the 'other' thing)

No, we simply choose not to use them. But really, I hate cheapskate because I had a fellow teacher who used it all the time, and I got tired of it. Maybe it was the only word she knew for that concept.

why not quote the whole thing, I was taking it out of the area of politics, I won't go there, It wasn't the concept of politics I was referring to but the concept of throwing money at a problem and not concidering how it's being used, sometimes (often) it is making more problems, when careful thought might say it's better to teach a man to fish.....

Kt
for the same reason I like 'habitat for humanity' rather than "projects". There is very little selfishness about HFH

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently — and a higher percentage of their incomes — than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy — and nearly twice that of the middle class. (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.)